© 2006 gregory finn 1 advanced oilfield operations with remote visualization and control ----------...

© 2006 Gregory Finn1

Advanced Oilfield Operationswith Remote Visualization and Control

----------

Moving from PDAs to Intelligent Cooperative Assistants

4 April 2006

Gregory Finn

PTE 589

© 2006 Gregory Finn2

Lecture Plan

• Background & motivation

• Wireless sensors– overview & potential applications

• Wearable computers– overview & potential applications

© 2006 Gregory Finn3

Sensor material taken from:– John Heidemann & Wei Ye [USC/ISI]

• “An Overview of Embedded Sensor Networks”,ISI TR-2004-594, Heidemann and Govindan

© 2006 Gregory Finn4

Drives Toward Smarter Facilities

• Remote control …– hurricanes, unsafe activities

• Enhance capabilities– visualization, agility

• Increase productivity– greater production efficiency

– reduced downtime

• Improve safety

© 2006 Gregory Finn5

Smart Area Characteristics• Communication rich

– Pervasive networking– Sensors, devices, processes & people in the net

• Compute rich– Computers scattered throughout the space

• Autonomous monitoring

• Visualization rich– Streams of real-time sensor, device & process data

• Control rich– Remote access to devices, processes & people

© 2006 Gregory Finn6

Smart Areas & Visualization

Smart areas generate lots of data …– Who can watch it all?

– Autonomous monitoring is a practical necessary

Monitoring is visualization …– Uses sensors + network + computer to ‘see’

• structure and device health

• staff & objects

• pipeline & pump activity

• dangerous areas

• dangerous actions

© 2006 Gregory Finn7

Staff as Part of Smart Area

Smart area is networked …– Devices, sensors & processes communicate via networks

– But people do not ‘network’

Solution: Make staff part of the smart area– Provide staff with personal wireless hosts

– Host act as eyes and ears in the area

– Host autonomously monitors smart area

© 2006 Gregory Finn8

Why Do That?

Several reasons …– improve productivity

• bring data where it’s needed (manuals/procedures/info on demand)video via display/camera

– enforce/aid safe practices• know what sensors see

• know what to do & not to do

• know where to be & not to be

– improve oversight• know where staff are

• improve dispatch/team forming

• prevent unauthorized operation

© 2006 Gregory Finn9

Why Possible Now?

Moore’s Law (Gordon Moore – Intel 1965)

– roughly true, should continue ~20 years

– produces exponential rate of change

– #transistors/chip doubles in ~two years

Computers became exponentially …– smaller

– faster

– less expensive

– less power hungry

© 2006 Gregory Finn10

PDP-10 mainframe Dell Precision 670

Space 60 sq meters 0.25 sq meter

Power 40,000 watts 650 watts

Weight 1,800 kg 19 kg

Memory 1 MB 16,000 MB

Speed 1 Mips 4,000 Mips

Disk 80 MB 1,200,000 MB

Cost (2005 $) $2,000,000 $15,000

1970 vs 2005

© 2006 Gregory Finn11

Portables & Sensors Today

© 2006 Gregory Finn12

Example: Telos-B Mote

Characteristics …

• Powered via USB or battery

• Internal antenna

• Controllable xmit power

Flexibility …

• Sensors – Light/IR/Humidity/Temp

• CPU + TinyOS + 48KB Flash + 10KB RAM

© 2006 Gregory Finn13

Future Sensor Platforms?Smart dust (Kris Pister, UC Berkeley)• nodes smaller than 1mm3

• prices less than $0.05/each

Nok

ia

super cell-phonesor wearable computers

mote-size and price,but 32-bit CPU power

or

© 2006 Gregory Finn14

Why Else Is It Possible Now?

[courtesy of UCSD’s caida.org]

1969

1980

2000

… the Internet

© 2006 Gregory Finn15

Back in the Old Days...

1920s telephony:circuits---a physical wire from one end to the other

wire

the “router”(Aunt Mable)

© 2006 Gregory Finn16

Multiplexing: Splitting a Shared Channel

Frequency Division Multiplexing

Code Division Multiplexinga a a a a a a a a a a

Time Division Multiplexing

© 2006 Gregory Finn17

Logical View of the Telephone Network

Fixed size pipe from source to destination perfect for voice reliable conversations (QoS) provisioning, good engineering dumb & cheap end points, smart network evolved for 100 years (analog to digital)

© 2006 Gregory Finn18

Packet Switching (Internet)

Differences: packets as low-level component multiple kinds of traffic smart edges, (dumb network)

But: guarantees are much harder end-points are more expensive

© 2006 Gregory Finn19

Characteristics of the Internet

• Packet switched

• Freely available standards (IETF)

• End-to-end– intelligence and control in the end-points (dumb middle)

– critical to allowing deployment of new services

• Distributed (no central point of control)

• But security becomes harder

© 2006 Gregory Finn20

Commercial Activity Today

Development of …• networks (wireless and wired)

• low-power CPUs

• sensors

• applications

– centralized or stand-alone

• smart devices

– wireless monitor/control

• intrinsically safe hardware

Stage is set, however …smart area development is still research.

© 2006 Gregory Finn21

Missing: Software Infrastructure

Domain representations– facility & process models

Spatial directories– people, sensors, devices and objects

Standards & protocols– data interchange and naming

Security

Applications– processes and procedures

© 2006 Gregory Finn22

Still … We Can Assume

In a few years …… pervasive communication & computation

• wireless networking– 802.11, UWB, sensors

• pocket computers– 1 GHz, 1600x1200 head-mounted displays

– ‘spatial awareness’

• ‘smart’ areas– sensors, staff, devices, processes

in continuous contact

© 2006 Gregory Finn23

Lecture Plan

• Background & motivation

• Wireless sensors– overview & potential applications

• Wearable computers– overview & potential applications

© 2006 Gregory Finn24

Why Sensors?

To know what is happening …

To visualize what is happening …– Measurement: temp., pressure, flow rate, mixture

– Safety: monitor hazards … H2S, forbidden states

– Structure: stress/corrosion in downhole & surface equipment, pipelines, refineries

– Reservoir: geology, current status of reserves, etc.

– Security: monitor position and intrusion

© 2006 Gregory Finn25

Sensor Challenges

Cost– Use thousands of sensors of many types

• RFID … passive ~ $0.10 … active ~ $5

• Motes ~ $50

Power consumption– solar + battery may be expensive or inappropriate

– battery life needed > 1 year

Networking– provide robust data interchange

– allow low power consumption

© 2006 Gregory Finn26

Why Network?

Networking:Ability of computers to exchange data …

Communicate what is known elsewhere …– distance education

– remote control

– share information and files• distributed management

– enable autonomous operation

© 2006 Gregory Finn27

ChallengesSecurity

– still largely ignored

Power consumption– given distributed computers & sensors with limited power

it’s very important

Bandwidth (speed)

Interaction– hardware / protocols: work pretty well today– software & cooperation

• danger of application Balkanization• no standards or competing standards• need agreements …ex: POSC and XML for oilfield data

© 2006 Gregory Finn28

Why Sensor Networking? Want to ‘see’ everywhere ‘visualize’ everything

– wellhead, surface facilities, control rooms– enable autonomous monitoring

Want to combine data– different information from different places reveals things– ex: ability to see bigger picture can make a big difference– reveal previously unobserved phenomena

Decrease cost– better information, more precise control

Increase safety– prevent dangerous actions– detect dangerous situations

© 2006 Gregory Finn29

ResultLots of computers interacting within the world

– physically distributed, sensing, different perspectives

Lots of computers interacting within the world– enough that they’re near what’s sensed, 100s-1000s– enough that some can be off and overall system still runs

Lots of computers interacting within the world– intelligent: able to decide what’s important, collaborate

Lots of computers interacting within the world– sensing, responding, acting– make the area smart

© 2006 Gregory Finn30

What’s New About Sensor Nets?

Many devices => treat devices as interchangeable– generic vs. dedicated to specific task– benefits: trade density for robustness, longevity, accuracy

Small wireless devices => resource constraints– limited energy, low bandwidth, higher latency– benefits: low price means sensors can be everywhere

challenges spur new technical approaches

© 2006 Gregory Finn31

Current Sensor Nets: SCADA Systems

SCADA: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition– remote control of equipment– since 1980s

General focus:– dumb instruments (vs. being able to compute in field)– often custom networks– data sent to central computer or database

Very important today!– remote control and monitoring

© 2006 Gregory Finn32

Comparing SCADA and Sensor NetsSCADA vs sensor networks

mainframes vs PCs(expensive, centralized, inflexible) vs cheap, distributed, versatile

Where is the data?– SCADA typically moves raw data to a central site– sensor nets focus on keeping and processing raw data at smart sensor

Where is the control?– SCADA typically leaves control decisions to central site– sensor nets focus on shifting control to smart edges

Who defines them?– SCADA systems are often proprietary protocols– sensor networks are today typically research protocols

Probably both areas will converge.

© 2006 Gregory Finn33

Military: vehicle tracking(ISI at DARPA SensIT SITEX)

Government: vehicle monitoring(USC/SPPD & ISI)

Scientific: micro-habitat monitoring(UCLA/CENS at James Reserve)

Industry: equipment monitoring and control

Applications of Sensor Nets

© 2006 Gregory Finn34

Structural Health Monitoring• Goal: Design sensor networks for

improving the safety of structures (buildings, bridges, ships, aircraft, spacecraft)

• Research focuses:– Local excitation-based damage

identification– System components for fine-

grain structural monitoring

• Multi-disciplinary effort:– John Caffrey (CE), Ramesh

Govindan (CS), Erik Johnson (CE), Bhaskar Krishnamachari (EE), Sami Masri (CE), Gaurav Sukhatme (CS)

© 2006 Gregory Finn35

Oilfield Safety MonitoringUse sensor net to detectand warn about leaks.

Challenges:– long-lived– easy deployment– self-configuration– condition-based maint.

© 2006 Gregory Finn36

Downhole Sensors for Control

Goal:see what’s happening downhole sensors monitor return mixturecut off side-wells at sign of water

Technical challenge:severe operating environment, communication and control

© 2006 Gregory Finn37

Virtual Reality?

Virtualizing operations …– sufficient timely data

– models of operation

… allows video-game like treatment– remote observation

– remote participation

– ‘game’ the operation

Fanciful? Perhaps.– requires lots of development

© 2006 Gregory Finn38

Lecture Plan

• Background & motivation

• Wireless sensors– overview & potential applications

• Wearable computers– overview & potential applications

© 2006 Gregory Finn39

Recap: Staff & Smart AreasSmart area is networked …

Smart area has lots of sensors …– Devices, sensors & processes communicate via networks

– But people cannot

Solution: Provide staff with wearable, wireless computer– Acts as eyes and ears in smart areas

– Monitors smart area for its wearer

© 2006 Gregory Finn40

Wearable Computer

Hands-free use– In pocket or on hip

– Normally on (PDA is normally off)

Common examples:– PDA, Cell phone, iPod

– Dedicated application, not general-purpose

© 2006 Gregory Finn41

Ideal Wearable Characteristics

Mediates between smart area and user– Unmonopolizing– Unrestrictive– Observable– Controllable– Attentive– Communicative

Courtesy: Steve Mann, Univ. Toronto

© 2006 Gregory Finn42

PDAs Today

Blackberry 8700g• CPU: 312 MHz

• Wireless: GSM cell phone, Bluetooth

• Memory: 64 MB flash/16 MB ram

• Display: 320x240 pixels

© 2006 Gregory Finn43

Video iPod

• CPU: 200 MHz

• Storage: 60 GB hard drive

• Display: 320 x 240 pixels

• Battery: 3 hrs playback

© 2006 Gregory Finn44

PDA of Today• CPU: 300 MHz• Memory: 1 GB• Storage: 60 GB

• Display: 320 x 240• Communication• Interaction

High-end workstation in 1998

Weaknesses

© 2006 Gregory Finn45

Addressing Weaknesses

Display– Resolution too low

– Screen too small

– Power hungry

ApproachHead-mounts

– 800 x 400 (DVD-quality)

– 3m view seen from 1.5m

© 2006 Gregory Finn46

EyetapComputer modifies what you see

– camera at eye position

– display over eye

– image to eye + computer

– superimposed feedback Steve Mann –Univ. Toronto, wearable pioneer

© 2006 Gregory Finn47

Addressing Weaknesses

Communication– Cell phone network is low speed

– Expensive infrastructure

ApproachUse more attractive alternatives: 802.11 …

– Higher speed (up to 24 Mb/s)

– Inexpensive infrastructure

© 2006 Gregory Finn48

Addressing Weaknesses

Interaction– PDA or ‘phone-call’ model

– Blind to surroundings & non-collaborative

ApproachMove toward wearable ideal

– Multiple wireless interfaces (near/far)

– Monitor surroundings

– Collaborate with other hosts in area

© 2006 Gregory Finn49

Application – TrackingAssume …

– wireless sensors• uniformly at known positions around facility

• announce every 2 seconds

– wearables• monitor sensors

• reports its ID & sensor IDs recently heard

Receiver can know where wearables are …– precision determined by sensor/receiver range

– history provides tracking & heading

© 2006 Gregory Finn50

Scenario: Tracking

receiver

?updates

sensor zones

© 2006 Gregory Finn51

Application – AvoidanceAssume same plus …

– administration• announces/withdraws dangerous area descriptions

– wearables• possess map: sensor ID position

• monitor area announcements

Wearable knows what areas to avoid …– monitors its location/heading

– warns wearer when approaching danger

© 2006 Gregory Finn52

Scenario: Approach Warning

S2

S1

S3

S5

S4

warningregion

© 2006 Gregory Finn53

Application – Virtual Gang LockAssume same plus …

– monitor• receives task description, announces task area

• monitors task member positions

• controls device state

– wearables• task members announce position to monitor

Monitor ensures safe practices …– controls entry/exit

– controls shutdown/restart

© 2006 Gregory Finn54

Scenario 1: Gang Lock

monitor

work area

device

© 2006 Gregory Finn55

Scenario 2: Gang Lock

work area

device

© 2006 Gregory Finn56

Collaboration: Buddy System

If you rely on a wearable for safety, it betterbe operating …

• wearables monitor each other’s health– heartbeat protocol

• health implies functionality

Lack of health implies trouble …– associated individual OK?

– need to suspend affected activity?

– need to find another buddy?

© 2006 Gregory Finn57

Looking Under the Hood

Much of this is in its infancy.

Serious work to be done on …– Resource discovery

– Scenario description & communication

– Security

© 2006 Gregory Finn58

Resource DiscoveryRouting finds hosts by their address.

How do wearables find resources?– ex: buddy, device, process method

Three approaches:– directory service (central or distributed)

– diffusion (broadcast or multicast)

– area search

© 2006 Gregory Finn59

XML Scenario Description• <!ELEMENT warning EMPTY >

<!ATTLIST warning command CDATA #REQUIRED message CDATA #REQUIRED>

• <!ELEMENT group ( buddy* ) >

• <!ELEMENT buddy EMPTY ><!ATTLIST buddy ident CDATA #REQUIRED>

• <!ELEMENT region ( coord_system, sphere+ ) >

• <!ELEMENT coord_system EMPTY ><!ATTLIST coord_system units CDATA #IMPLIED coord_ref CDATA #IMPLIED>

• <!ELEMENT sphere EMPTY ><!ATTLIST sphere x CDATA #REQUIRED y CDATA #REQUIRED z CDATA #REQUIRED r CDATA #REQUIRED>

• <!ELEMENT action ( warn_group ) >

• <!ELEMENT warn_group ( group ) >

© 2006 Gregory Finn60

Security

Downside of remote control …– attacks

• denial of service

• unauthorized access/use

• Eavesdropping

Encryption– public key or traditional

Authentication– biometric

– public key encryption